PDA

View Full Version : Website comparing Sampras/Federer


@wright
01-30-2006, 10:46 AM
Not to bring up this topic again, but can someone please post the website that compares the Sampras pace and Federer's current pattern? I think someone on this site created it, but i can't find it. It looked at their total titles, slam accumulation, etc.

Thanks.

ps 6.0
01-30-2006, 10:58 AM
http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html

Enjoy.

Moose Malloy
01-30-2006, 10:59 AM
In terms of age, they are even(both had 7 at 24) Sampras took 26 majors to win 7, while Federer took 27.

http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html

@wright
01-30-2006, 11:02 AM
Just what I was looking for - THANKS!

tom-selleck
01-30-2006, 11:03 AM
moose, thanks for posting..

that's an amazing comparison... how many years does federer have left?

did sampras win consistently till the end or did he have a few slower years?

i thought sampras' final USO win was a comeback of sorts... nice that he retired on top. only other i can think of is john elway and maybe MJ the first time.

interesting that sampras has won so much more on carpet. my guess is there are few carpet tournaments... i remember when tennis had a pretty big winter season of arena tournaments.

@wright
01-30-2006, 11:09 AM
So if Fed wins RG and/or Wimbledon, he will have moved ahead the pace of Sampras for his age.

@wright
01-30-2006, 11:12 AM
Tom- I noticed the carpet thing also. That is the only surface where Federer doesn't have a better or virtually the same winning % as Sampras. The last couple years, Federer hasn't played many carpet tournaments due to Fall injuries, so his winning % on carpet hasn't adjusted with his great seasons like other surface winning %'s. Also, check out the ATP titles link - it has a graph that shows their accumulation of regular and slam titles - very interesting because you can see how far in between the wins were.

Grigollif1
01-30-2006, 11:16 AM
http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html

Enjoy.

This statistics are very relative and not very meaningful. Sampras started his domination earlier in his career then Federer, who was a bite of a late starter. By 91 Sampras already won the US Open Just 3 years after becoming a Pro while it took Federer 5 Years to win his first slam. The matter of fact is that Sampras never really had such a dominant seasons in all surfaces as Fed's 04 and 05. If Roger Federer contiunes this up he is going to well pass Pete in this 10 years Statistics. But interesting numbers nevertheless...

Sadyv
01-30-2006, 12:52 PM
You do see that Sampras won 7 majors out of his first 26, and Fed won 7 out of 27, right? No early domination factor for Sampras, he won that US Open early,a nd then was silent for a while before he started up his magnificence.

Looking at that, it helps to remind people just how great Pete was. Hopefully Roger will continue, his great success will have as long a life as PEte's did.

Moose Malloy
01-30-2006, 12:53 PM
Carpet is no longer used on the ATP tour, except for a few small events.
They did away with it because there were so many big serving ,attacking players in the 90s(Becker, Stich, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, etc.) in an attempt to slow down the game.
Federer won't have the opportunity to approach that Sampras record.
If you look at their indoor records, both have similar winning %.

random1
01-30-2006, 01:40 PM
moose, thanks for posting..

that's an amazing comparison... how many years does federer have left?

did sampras win consistently till the end or did he have a few slower years?

i thought sampras' final USO win was a comeback of sorts...
Sampras best years were 93-95. He won 2 slams each of those three seasons, including three in a row: Wimby and USO in '93 and AO in '94, and those years were his best for overall winning percentage.
From '96 - '00, he won one a year, except '97 where he won 2.
And even though many people talk about Pete being past prime when he won his final USO in '02, he was in the previous 2 finals, and clearly only cared about majors at that point in his career.

Federer will have to win 3 of the next 6 to keep pace w/Pete, which is certainly no given, despite Fed's seeming invincibility at times. I like the Fed vs. Pete comparison site, good fodder for discussion here.

Geezer Guy
01-30-2006, 01:47 PM
That's a great comparison. For all the hype about Fed being the best ever (not saying it's totally unjustified), it's nice for me as a Sampras admirer to see that Pete's numbers hold up pretty darn good compared to Rogers.

Also, people are quick to jump Pete for never winning the French and say that Roger will SURELY win it any time now, but so far Pete's results at the French are just as good as Rogers.

It will indeed be interesting to see how this plays out over the next 5 years.

williams planet
01-30-2006, 01:53 PM
Also, people are quick to jump Pete for never winning the French and say that Roger will SURELY win it any time now, but so far Pete's results at the French are just as good as Rogers.




True. Federer has little chance of winning a French Open. He has a combined record of 14-7 at the French Open at this point, and he has only made it to the semis once in 7 attempts at Roland Garros.

But it would be great if he wins it.

Moose Malloy
01-30-2006, 01:57 PM
In order to break or tie the record, I think Fed needs to ease up on his effort level in non-Slam events.
Yeah, its great that he cares so much about every event, but that's not how you keep winning majors into your late 20s. Fed lost 5 sets in Melbourne(more than he did at the US Open & Wimbledon combined) He's not winning as easily as he used to & I think that will continue as long as he keeps winning all these minor events(Doha, Dubai, etc- who really cares if he equals mac's 82-3 record? It's not that important in the big picture)
He needs to be physically fit & fresh in order to play his game. If he keeps going 100% every week of the year he will burn out.

buder
01-30-2006, 02:16 PM
sampras should hold a press conference and say "I was the best server ever. And when my serve was working, the rest of my game clicked -- because there was less pressure. Federer, however, has the best all court game that has or will ever exist. He has skills that have never been seen. His ground game makes mine look average, even though I could crank a forehand every now and again. He doesn't need the free points from his serve to dominate and establish a ground presence. Without the combination of graphite and grass, my serve may never have been a Wimbledon force, and my slam total would have been much less. I'm happy being mentioned in the same sentance as Roger. He has more pure skill than anyone who has ever played"

Unfortunately, Pete will never give Roger the credit until he has to. Like Michael Jordan, being considered the best ever is an obsession. I would not want to be in the Sampras household if Roger wins number #15.

Moose Malloy
01-30-2006, 02:28 PM
Why do you think that? Sampras is very complimentary of Fed, saying he expects him to break his records.
He's not an insanely competitive guy like Jordan(or Johnny Mac or Navratilova) for that matter.
The way he's completely disappeared from the game shows that he doesn't have much of an ego. Listen to Mac's commentary, part of the reason he does it is to be in the spotlight & remind people of how great he was.

I read an interview with Sampras last year. The interviewer asked him what was his best match ever. Sampras replied, "The Wimbledon Final against Agassi. I think it was in '00."
He's wrong, it was '99. The guy can't even remember what year his greatest match was. Yeah, he sounds like he's obessed with himself & his accomplishments. I remember when Sampras broke the alltime record & he was asked if he considered himself the greatest of alltime. He said, "Off course not. Laver was banned from tennis for 6 years. He probably should have 20 majors."
Yeah, what a self-centered jerk that Sampras is.

And that Wimbledon/Power Serving thing has been mentioned for over 20 years. If Pete was lucky to have technology in his corner for 7 Wimbledons, then so were Becker, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Stich. The all used their serves & powerful graphite racquets to win Wimbledon. If Sampras wasn't around Goran or Becker would have 5-6 Wimbledons. And they wouldn't be lucky to have those titles, as Sampras is not lucky to have his. He played to win not entertain you by staying back & hitting groundies.

Marius_Hancu
01-30-2006, 03:09 PM
I think the site makes for a great comparison.

Their stats parallel each other to an amazing degree up to this point in time.

The diagram in
http://www.tennis28.com/charts/Sampras_Federer_ATP_titles.GIF
might indicate that Roger's curve will intersect and surpass Pete's curve this year:-)

A point of note: Laver, Sampras, Federer were all born under the sign of the Lion. Makes you believe in the Zodiac:-)

badmice2
01-30-2006, 03:16 PM
So if Fed wins RG and/or Wimbledon, he will have moved ahead the pace of Sampras for his age.

If Federer wins clay, he'll have something Sampras never got...he WILL be the all time great.

pianeon
01-30-2006, 03:32 PM
They're both phenomenal and classy players. That is all.